This Article 13 provides actual current NCAA RPI, KPI, Balanced RPI, and Massey rankings based on the actual results of games played through Week 6 (through September 20) of the season, for teams, conferences, and regions.
Here is a link to an Excel workbook that contains all the information:
2026 RPI Report Actual Results Only as of 9.20.2026
To download the workbook, use the following steps:
1. Click on the workbook link.
2. The link takes you to a Google spreadsheet, which you will not want to use. On the Google spreadsheet, to the left, click on File, which will bring up a drop down menu.
3. In the menu, click on Download, which will bring up another drop down menu.
4. In the drop down menu, click on Microsoft Excel (.xlsx). This will download the Excel workbook.
The first page of the workbook is for Teams, the second for Conferences, and the third for Regions. The data so far are based almost entirely on non-conference games. A way to think about the data at this point in the season is that they are most reliable in showing how the regions stack up against each other, are reasonably reliable in showing how the conferences stack up, and are not very reliable in showing how the individual teams stack up. How the individual teams stack up will be sorted out during conference play.
On the Teams page, on the left, are color coded columns. These columns are based on past history. They show which teams, based on their current ratings, are potential seeds (by seed level) and at large selections for the NCAA Tournament and which already appear assured of getting at least at large selections. As the color coding shows, teams with NCAA RPI ranks of #65 or better are potential #1 or #2 seeds. Teams ranked #192 or better are potential candidates for all other seeds and for at large selections. Only the top 5 teams appear assured of at large selections, which means the current at large bubble is teams ranked #6 through #192. These numbers show how unreliable the current rankings are, so far as how the NCAA Tournament bracket will end up is concerned.
Mostly for illustration purposes, here are the current NCAA RPI Top 65 teams -- i.e., the potential #1 and #2 NCAA Tournament seeds, with some comments below:
Comment 1: You may notice that some of the Balanced RPI ranks for teams are significantly different than the other systems' ranks. The NCAA RPI formula, at this point in the season, weights teams' winning percentages at 42.9% and their opponents' strength of schedule at 57.1%. This is different than what its weights will be at the end of the season, which will be approximately 50,0% and 50.0%. The Balanced RPI, on the other hand, weights teams' winning percentages at 50.0% and their strength of schedule at 50.0% and will do so throughout the season. (The systems calculate strength of schedule differently.) Most of the significant differences are accounted for by the NCAA RPI's current de-emphasis on teams' winning perentages.
Comment 2: Massey's rating formulas take into consideration teams' ratings over a number of past years. As the season progresses, the weight of prior years' ratings decreases. This accounts for some of the differences between his ratings and the other systems' ratings.
Comment 3: Although there will be significant differences among the rating systems at the end of the season, particularly between the NCAA RPI and KPI systems on the one hand and the Balanced RPI and Massey on the other, the differences will be significantly narrower than what you see today.
Actual Less Predicted Winning Percentages
This year, I have added data for each of teams, conferences, and regions, showing their actual winning percentages as compared to their expected winning percentages based on their current NCAA RPI ratings. For Teams, these data are in the far right columns.
Using currently #1 rated Michigan State as an example, its Actual Winning Percentage so far is 74.1%. Based on its current NCAA RPI rating and the current ratings of its opponents, however, its Expected Winning Percentage Based on NCAA RPI Rating is 80.8%. The difference is -6.7%.
Compare this to North Carolina. Its Actual Winning Percentage is 90.0%, its Expected Winning Percentage Based on its NCAA RPI Rating is 75.9%, and its difference is 14.1%.
These numbers suggest that currently, the NCAA RPI is overrating Michigan State and underrating North Carolina.
For Conferences, the Actual less Expected numbers are in column H and how conferences rank in terms of this difference is in column I. For example, using the ACC as an example, the difference between its teams' Actual and Expected winning percentages is 4.5%, meaning the conference overall is underrated. And, it is the 6th most underrated conference.
For Regions, the numbers likewise are in columns H and I. Using the Autonomy region as an example, the difference between its teams' Actual and Expected winning percentages is 7.7% and it is the most underrated region.
Percentage of In-Region Ties
Of particular interest this week, column Q on the Regions page shows the proportion of each region's in-region games that are ties. This may be a measure on in-region parity. Most notably, the MidEast region has had 30.2% of its in-region games to date end as ties. That is extremely high, especially in relation to an historic norm around 21%. This is important because the NCAA in 2024 changed its RPI Winning Percentage formula to treat ties as only 1/3 of a win rather than the 1/2 of a win it had used in previous years. As the percentage of in-region ties numbers show, this is having a disproportionate negative impact on MidEast region teams this year.
The MidEast region consists of teams from the Atlantic Ten, Big East, and Colonial (now Coastal) conferences and the Ivy League.
No comments:
Post a Comment